From lancet-skills
Generates The Lancet's mandatory Research in context panel with three headed parts, grounded in a systematic literature search with stated databases, terms, and dates.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/lancet-skills:lancet-research-in-contextThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- Writing an original research **Article** for The Lancet (the panel is mandatory).
The Research in context panel is The Lancet's signature artifact and is required for every original research Article. It forces authors to place their study inside a systematically searched evidence base — not a cherry-picked introduction. Editors and reviewers read it early; a weak or search-free panel signals an unsystematic literature review.
What was known before you did this study, and how you found it. This must describe a systematic search, not a casual reading:
What your study adds that the prior evidence did not provide — the specific new knowledge, in one short paragraph. Concrete and non-promotional: the new effect estimate, the new population/setting, the resolved uncertainty.
What your findings plus the existing evidence mean together — for clinical practice, public-health policy, and future research. Calibrate causal/practice-changing language to the design. This is where the global-health/equity and policy implications belong.
Research in context
Evidence before this study
We searched [databases] for [study types] published between [start date] and
[end date / "the search was last updated on <date>"] using the terms
"[term 1]" AND "[term 2]" [AND "[term 3]"], with [language restrictions / none].
[Inclusion criteria.] [What the existing evidence showed and its key
uncertainties/limitations, ideally with a quality judgement.]
Added value of this study
[In one short paragraph: the specific new knowledge this study provides —
the new estimate, population, setting, or resolved uncertainty.]
Implications of all the available evidence
[What the totality of evidence now implies for clinical practice, for
public-health policy, and for future research — with calibrated causal
language and any equity/global-health implications.]
【Panel parts present】 Evidence before / Added value / Implications — all three? yes/no
【Systematic search documented】 databases + terms + dates + language? yes/no (list gaps)
【Consistency】 search matches Introduction + abstract Background? yes/no
【Added value specific?】 yes/no
【Implications cover practice + policy + research?】 yes/no
【Drafted panel】 the three-part panel, filled
【Next】 lancet-abstract
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin lancet-skillsStructures and trims a Lancet Article main text (IMRaD, ~3000–3500 words) with a cautious Discussion, Research in context panel, and reference budget (~30).
Conducts systematic, scoping, narrative, or meta-analysis literature reviews across academic, biomedical, and technical domains. Uses PICO and structured search protocols.
Structures a literature review for research papers, theses, or systematic reviews, guiding synthesis and gap identification.